Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and delivers almost nothing: it does not say whether the report is immutable, who is notified, whether auth/permissions are required, or what happens to the 4 required inputs. 'Report' weakly implies a write, but the behavioral surface is essentially undisclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Only one short clause, so it is front-loaded with no padding, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness; the '[security]' tag consumes words without adding meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

A four-required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation needs the description to supply the missing context; a six-word tag plus phrase leaves the agent without enough to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Four required parameters with 0% schema description coverage and no parameter guidance anywhere in the description. severity's enum is the only self-documenting field; system_id, description, and affected_users have no stated format, source, or constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a verb (Report) and resource (compliance incident), so the basic action is inferable, but the bare '[security]' prefix is a tag rather than differentiation and nothing separates it from the sibling 'compliance_incidents', which plausibly lists the incidents this tool files.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to the near-identical sibling compliance_incidents. The agent must guess whether this creates a new incident or queries existing ones.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.